Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
K.D. v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2024K.D. v. People , 139 P.3d 695, 700 (Colo. 2006). ¶ 11 A parent must have a reasonable amount of time to work on a treatment plan before the juvenile court terminates their parental rights. 2024K.D. v. People , 139 P.3d 695, 700 (Colo. 2006). ¶ 11 A parent must have a reasonable amount of time to work on a treatment plan before the juvenile court terminates their parental rights. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nietogreen1 sentence2012Id. at 502 ("Where a statute is ambiguous, a court may consider several factors in discerning the intent of the legislature, including the legislative history, the General Assembly's declaration of purpose, and the object sought to be attained."); see also §$ 2-4-2083, C.R.8.2012. 132 Here, the applicability of the exclusion depends on the meaning of the phrase "under the control of." Although both parties advance plausible alternative definitions of property that is "under the control of" a dog owner, we decline to adopt them. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Felicitas N. Fullergreen2 sentences2011See U.S. v. Fuller, 941 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir.1991). 2011See U.S. v. Fuller, 941 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Charnes v. Boomgreen1 sentence2000See § 2-4-203 (stating that in determining the intention of the General Assembly, the court may consider the object sought to be attained, the legislative history, and the legislative declaration or purpose); see also Charnes v. Boom, 766 P.2d 665, 667 (Colo.1988) (stating that the intent of the General Assembly can be determined by considering the statute’s legislative history, the state of the law prior to the legislative enactment, the problem addressed by the legislation, and the statutory remedy created to cure the problem). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People Ex Rel. Dp
green
2 sentences2024People in Interest of D.P. , 181 P.3d 403 , 408 (Colo. App. 2008). ¶ 10 In determining whether a parent’s conduct or condition is likely to change and whether the parent can become fit in a reasonable time, the court may consider several factors, incl uding (1) whether any change occurred during the dependency and neglect proce eding; (2) the parent’s social history; and (3) t he chronic or long- term nature of the parent’s conduct or c ondition. 2024People in Interest of D.P. , 181 P.3d 403 , 408 (Colo. App. 2008). ¶ 10 In determining whether a parent’s conduct or condition is likely to change and whether the parent can become fit in a reasonable time, the court may consider several factors, incl uding (1) whether any change occurred during the dependency and neglect proce eding; (2) the parent’s social history; and (3) t he chronic or long- term nature of the parent’s conduct or c ondition. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Bernal v. People
green
2 sentences2018Id. ¶ 56 Under the second step of this analysis, the court may consider several factors, including “(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Id. at 192 . 2018Id. ¶ 56 Under the second step of this analysis, the court may consider several factors, including “(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Id. at 192 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C.
green
1 sentence2005Keefe, 40 P.3d at 1271-72 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.